Selected Essays And Book Reviews

A. Be able to explain and defend the five lines of argument used to argue for the historicity of the New Testament. To begin with, the first lines of arguments for the historicity of the New Testament are some general tests for the New Testament. The bibliographical test examines the number of manuscripts and how close to the original. The internal test considers whether or not the New Testament claims to have eyewitnesses and is historical. The external test looks at information outside of the New Testament which verifies or falsifies it. The second line of arguments is the presence of eyewitnesses. Third are the Gospels and Jewish oral tradition. Fourth are the marks of historicity, which include the form of Jesus' sayings, the presence of irrelevant material, the lack of relevant material, and the inclusion of some counterproductive features. Fifth is the time factor of the expansion of Christianity, Paul's letters, the Gospels, the historical Jesus of radical critics, and the speeches of Acts, Chapters 1-12.

B. Be able to recognize and present arguments for the resurrection of Jesus based on the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and four key features of the early Church. There are eight arguments for the resurrection based on the empty tomb. First, the New Testament is a collection of testimonies. Second, the early preaching by Peter in Acts 2 concerning the resurrection. Third, there was not any annual worship at His tomb after He arose. Fourth, the empty tomb was widely believed by Romans, Jews, and Greeks. Fifth, Matthew 28:11-15 is the only polemic against the resurrection. Sixth, the pre-Markian narrative implies that Caiphas was still the High Priest. Seventh, the Gospels are the only reports of a resurrection. And eight, the Jews would not have believed in a spiritual resurrection. There are five points about His resurrection appearances to support His rising from death. First, He appeared to several at one time. Second, all His appearances were within forty days. Third, the Greek word for "he appeared" suggested that those who saw Him thought they were seeing something real. Fourth, Jesus did not just appear to believers, and fifth, Jesus was seen to have a new kind of body. The four key features of the early Church were the transformation of the disciples, the change in key social structures of Judaism, the sacraments of the early church, and the existence of the church itself.

C. Be able to recognize the basic difference between Rational Realism, Rational Nonrealism, and Nonrational Nonrealism. Rational realism recognizes scientific theories as basically true and that they describe the world the way it is. Rational nonrealism says that science does not give a true picture of real entities beyond what our senses tell us. It can take the form of phenomenalism (scientific knowledge is about what we can see), operationism (theoretical terms are shorthand devices for laboratory operations), pragmatism (looking for theories that work), and constructive empiricism (trying to find theories that accurately describe and predict empirical phenomenon). Nonrational nonrealism says that neutral facts do not exist, that rival theories cannot be compared, that rational science only exists in the community of practitioners, and that current theories are just successive replacements of earlier theories.

D. Know the limits of science and the five models of integration of science and theology. There are two limits of science. First, scientific statements are self-refuting because one cannot use them to prove that science is true. Second, science must presume that our senses are accurate and that our minds are rational. The five models of science and theology are (1) difference in essence (science and theology are concerned with two totally different things), (2) difference in approach (science and theology are approached differently), (3) theology foundational for sceince (theology only provides a foundation for science and is inadequate as a total view), (4) science delimitative of theology (theologians pick up where science leaves off), and (5) interaction approach to the same reality (theology and science occasioanally conflict). In reality, a proper integration and total view is probably possible when using all models together with the exception of model four.

E. Be able to defend the scientific status of creation science. Is creation about science or theology? It is a science. First, creation scientitsts are not narrow-minded. Second, they do not only rely on bad data that refute evolution. Third, creation science does not just have a religion concept. Fourth, "God" is often seen as being an illegal term in science because it involves the supernatural. Fifth, creation science is often seen as Bible only and not scientific (i.e., genetic fallacy). Sixth, creation science does not make any predictions and is not testable.

F. Be able to discuss the basic exegetical issues in the early chapters of Genesis which relate to the creation/evolution controversy. The chronology of the Genesis narrative may or may not be exact details. Parts of this chronology might be arranged according to topic, not time. Creation is sometimes ex nihilo, sometimes not. The Hebrew word "tohu" means formless (universe without structure) and applies to days one, three, five, and seven. The Hebrew word "bohu" means fullness given (universe without content) and applies to days two, four, and six. The Hebrew word "bara" means to create, shaping something new from something already there, and the Hebrew word "yom" means to make, sometimes miracle, sometimes not. Some important conclusions have been stated from this Hebrew word study. First, extrabiblical study can help understand the use of certain Hebrew words. Second, extrabiblical study can help with interpretation. Third, on biblical grounds, "yom" should be twenty-four hours. In extrabiblical literature, "yom" has less use in this context. Fourth, the age of the universe can be long or short. Fifth, Adam and Eve could have conceivably been 30,000 or 40,000 B.C. Finally, Genesis, Chapter One, must be taken at face value for order of events, so we must remain open-minded with those who disagree with us.

G. Be able to state the basic features of the general theory of evolution, and have a general understanding of the main areas of scientific criticism of the general theory of evolution. The basic features of evolution include the following: (1) life emerged from non-life in a type of spontaneous generation, (2) this spontaneous generation only occurred at one time and in one place, (3) there is no distinction between plant life, animal life, viruses, and bacteria (they are all interrelated), (4) protozoa gave rise to metazoa, (5) various invertebrate phyla (animals without a spinal column) are interrelated, (6) invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates, and (7) fish gave rise to amphibia, which gave rise to reptiles, which gave rise to birds, which gave rise to mammals, including mankind. The criticisms are: (1) microevolution might be true, but there is not any evidence for macroevolution, (2) no evidence exists to show that the right environment for the prebiotic soup ever happened (too much oxygen), (3) the fossil record is very, very weak, (4) life resembles the complexity of the Encyclopedia Britannica, (5) the Second Law of Thermodynamics contrasts evolution, and (6) an enzyme study shows that the probability for evolution is one chance in 10^40,000 chances.

H. Be able to answer objections raised against Christianity from the visibility of God, God as a psychological projection, and the knowability of miracles. Concerning the visibility of God, the objection is that a person needs five senses to experience God. However, viewing something and only knowing that it is true by sight is self-refuting (philosophical presupposition). This cannot be verified by the five senses. Second, moral values and one's own thoughts exist, but they cannot be viewed. Third, one cannot fault a category because it is not something else (category fallacy - the letter "C" is not red). Fourth, the backside of 3-dimensional objects exist but cannot be seen. Fifth, there might be other forms of perception besides sight. And sixth, we often assume the existence of things that have never been seen (the atom, a magnetic field). Concerning God as a psychological projection, the objection is that people believe because they cannot cope. However, one person wants God, and another does not (denial). Second, one cannot criticize a view just because of where it came from (genetic fallacy). Third, the biblical God is not the One that we would ordinarily manufacture. And fourth, a natural need or desire usually means that the object exists (who would fabricate a trinity?). Concerning the knowability of miracles, the obection is that people cannot know real miracles. However, having a criterion for knowledge is not necessary. Second, biblical miracles seem to have a framework for understanding them. And third, there are general miracles outside the Bible.

I. Know how to respond to the problem of the nature and justification of hell, the problem of the exclusivity of Christ as the only way, and the treatment of those who don't hear the gospel. The nature of Hell is that it is separate from God, love, and anything of value that is worthwhile (II Thessalonians 1:6-9 and Matthew 25:31-46). Because God is everywhere, Hell may not be spatial. However, a literal fire means a literal place. Luke 12:47-48, Matthew 11:21-24, and Matthew 23:23 suggest that there will be different degrees of punishment. Hell is meant to be a place of judgment and retribution. God rules by love and lets us say no to Him. Concerning the exclusivity of Christ, only Christianity has a workable answer to the realms of pain and evil. Jesus is unique in His claims to be God. He claimed to be the only way to God, plus the claims that there are several ways is self-refuting. The issue is truth, not belief or sincerity. Concerning those who do not hear the gospel, God will get the message to them if they are responding to the light they have (Acts 10).

J. Understand the main difference between the causal and direct perception arguments from religious experience. The causal argument looks at a changed life while the direct perception argument looks at various perceptions. People using the causal argument are saying that God is the best explanation for their changed life. A person might psyche themselves up, but the user of this argument is saying that their change is more than psychological or sociological. The direct perception argument tries to show a close form of spiritual seeing to physical seeing. This argument rests on showing that non-sensory perceptions are correct. Sense perception says that certain conditions must be met for me to see an object. The experience seems to be outside of me. Numinous perception says that one must be looking for God. With this view, one is more inclined to experience certain things as they get closer and closer to God.

K. Know the difference between the five forms of relativism and the objections raised against them. Cultural or descriptive relativism says that different cultures differ on moral values. However, not all cultures are right even though many cultures agree on some core values. Normative relativism or conventionalism says that what is right for one society might not be right for all. But it is hard to define a society, plus some agents can be members of more than one society. Metaethical or conceptual relativism says that some terms have different meanings to different cultures. However, some actions are just wrong, and no one in one society would be able to argue with any other society. Ethical skepticism breaks into two divisions: the epistemological (I cannot know moral absolutes) and the ontological version (right and wrong do not exist). On the first, a person can know what is right and wrong. On the second, people do know that some things are right and wrong. The principle of toleration says that being tolerant is a moral absolute, but this is a contradiction.